1

commands. Not to have seen the "Times," is not to have waked in the morning. And to venture to go into parliament, without knowing what course of action has been prescribed by the "Thunderer," is to risk political ruin.

Now, this species of despotism may have its good as well as its bad side: it may have its uses, just as the Popedom has or once had; but, on the whole, it is odious and mischievous. For it is not the power of wisdom or truth that sustains this lofty dominion, -it is simply custom and effrontery; and, above all, the might of anonymousness (to coin a word for my purpose). In the first place, custom. The English are such reverers of custom, they are such lovers of old things merely because they are old, they have such a fear of disturbing "vested rights," that the fact of this journal having held tyrannical dominion for the last twenty or forty years, is considered the very best reason why it should continue to hold it, and why every loyal Englishman should bow down before it. Then, its assurance fairly masters them a voice that dares to speak out so boldly, must, they think, have the right so to speak; just as, in English traveling, the stranger that puts on a haughty air, and finds fault, and gives orders sharply, is regarded by the vulgar as the real aristocrat, the true gentleman, and receives attention accordingly.

But, above all, it is the might of anonymousness, that, in conjunction with the other forces, gives the "Times" its power. It is this, chiefly, which makes it the "Thunderer"—the source whence the voice proceeds being unknown or unseen: it is the mystery far more than the majesty, that makes

:

the sound terrible. The force which this quality of secrecy carries with it, has been thus well described by an English writer : "The power of the press, as every one knows, is greatly aided by the mystery which shrouds the writer, merging all personality of the individual in the mysterious plurality of the organ through which he speaks. The 'we' of John or Thomas, uttered through the speaking trumpet of the 'Times,' becomes a very different pronoun from the 'I' of these gentlemen, uttered through their individual windpipes. It is not John or Thomas, that proclaims the danger of a nation, the incapacity of a minister, the justice or injustice of a deed. It is an unknown voice uttered out of darkness, and therefore formidable. The voice of a Greek Tragedian sounded, through his mask, more awful than it really was; and the majestic buskin raised a very ordinary figure to the kingly height of Agamemnon.”

This is the fact, and this, too, is the wrong. All falsity produces evil, in one way or another. This is sham thunder, and yet men take it for real thunder, and are alarmed at it as if it were. The "Times," as everybody knows, is a great mischiefmaker. It has bred more ill-blood between England and America, than all other periodicals together (always excepting the outrageous "Quarterly," as it was under the abusive Gifford and the supercilious Lockhart). And what is the reason? Because it is permitted to sway this potent rod of anonymousness, to cover itself with this mask of mystery, beneath which it makes its cowardly assaults. Think you that a great country like

America would care what was said of it by the "John" or "Thomas" (or whatever may happen to be the name of the person who is at the head of the "Times"*)? An obscure individual might say what he pleased of the country or its course, and his voice would be unheard, or an answer disdained. But when he puts on the great mask of a wide-spread newspaper, and through this roars out so as to stir all England, and make them listen to his abuse of our country, and thus turns all eyes upon us, the little person becomes of consequence ; and still more, when he represents himself, or is considered, the mouth-piece of all England.

It would be well, if, when we read the "Times" (or, indeed, any other abusive British journal), we should recollect that it is a mere individual utter

ing his own conceits. We should picture to ourselves a person sitting at his desk, dipping his pen into the ink, and dashing off anything that comes into his head,-full of conceit at the thought that this will appear to-morrow as a "leader," and will attract the attention of the country, and make a stir. Let but this thought be kept steadily in mind, as we read, and we should find the thunder die away in our ears, and the "Thunderer" sink into a very innocuous personage.

That just in this way, and from precisely this spirit, the renowned "leaders" in the "Times" are produced, is plain from internal evidence. More

* The original "Thunderer," it appears, was a Captain Stirling. (See "Men of the Time," for 1852.) Whether he was a captain of artillery, and so, in a manner, trained to thunder, I have not discovered. The present editor is, I believe, a Mr. John Delaine.

bombastic and sophomorical compositions are not produced in England, than some of these sounding articles. They have in general, I have observed, far more sparkle and show, than solid sense and real ability. They are not to be compared, in solidity and wisdom, with the "leaders" of many other papers, as, for instance, the "Examiner," the "Daily News," the "Liverpool Mercury," and some others. And I ascribe this to the fact, that the writer or writers are always on stilts. Being raised so much above their compeers, they deem themselves objects of general observation. Every word they write, they consider will be gazed upon and devoured by the whole country. Hence they are always on the stage always acting; they are never simple and

true.

To me, the "Times" leaders are, nine times out of ten, unpleasant to read-whatever subject they may be treating upon-simply from the insincerity, frivolousness of spirit, and flippancy of style which they manifest. They often make, too, very gross misrepresentations, distorting the facts to answer the end they have in view. Their ends change and vary, too, with the inconstancy of the wind; and the spirit of the articles varies accordingly. Sometimes they are blustering and boastful: sometimes small and sycophantic. This variation is especially shown in treating on American affairs. They come out, one day, with threatening, contumely, and war. Then, finding they have gone too far, they will creep out, a day or two after, with a very humble look, never having the nobleness to make a frank apology, but trying to make up for their previous abuse by sneaking and partial praise.

In fact, the English have reason to be ashamed of the "Times ;" and so they often are. "The Times,' remarks one London paper (the "Saturday Review"), "is so curious a mixture of greatness and littleness, that it is difficult to say whether Englishmen have more reason to be proud or ashamed of their selfconstituted representative." So, in the following observation, made by another British journal* at the time of the difficulties between England and the United States on the Central American Question, the spirit of the Times "leaders" is justly rebuked. "Let our press," it says, "have the sense and self-respect, to desist from the miserable see-saw between irritating bravado and canting servility, which to-day provokes hostility, and tomorrow emboldens insolence. There is nothing to be gained, with the Americans, either by truculence or fawning." Another journal, anxious to convince our countrymen that the "Times" is no true exponent of English feeling, thus speaks: "Our well informed Transatlantic friends understand too much about the English press, to fall into the error that the voice of our people is uttered in the columns of the 'Times.' This organ will not be mistaken, in the United States, for the real exponent of public opinion in England.”+

Remarks similar to these, I have often observed in the other British journals, showing that the "Times" is not, in fact, respected in England by the wise and good. And yet it continues to be taken and read, on the same ground that the New York "Herald"

* Liverpool Mercury

† London Christian News.